Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
By the way, I meant to point out to KenG Carroll's remark in the interview linked above where he differentiated between the views of Steven Weinberg and David Deutsch regarding [paraphrasing] the fundamental reason for science. I have long sought some way to express what I have thought is wrong (or too one-sided) with what I suppose is Ken's philosophical view of science, and here Sean Carroll expresses it quite well in 5 or 10 seconds in this interview. Of course, being too "Weinbergian" is hardly a criticism that many people would be unhappy about, but I believe Carroll sided solidly with Deutsch on this point, as do I. |
I suppose Ken would reply that, although speculative, such theories have the
potential to one day become testable, hence scientific. I hope he sees this thread and speaks for himself, though. I thought of him too as soon as I started to read it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RalofTyr
I don't think they are ATM. They are just theories. Like evolution....or religion...
|
But that's the thing -- evolution is
not just a theory. The TalkOrigins archive calls it "a fact and a theory". What they mean by this is that particular instances of evolution, observations that confirm evolution, have been made in persuasive amounts. The same, of course, cannot be said of multiverse theories. Unless one regards multiverses as mere
heuristic "interpretations" of astrophysics.